Discuss the concept of Natural Law with reference to the ideas of Aristotle and Aquinas.

by sophowrighty (student)

AS and A Level Religious Studies & Philosophy

Natural law-Sophie Wright.

Aristotle believed that humans have a final cause or purpose. He said this was our supreme good; the ultimate goal which we desire for its own sake and to which all our other goals eventually lead. He believed the human purpose was to reach ‘eudaimonia’ (happiness) which includes the idea of flourishing and living well. Any object reaches its ultimate purpose by ‘performing its function with excellence’.

Aristotle considered that the human function is to live a life of reason; this is the highest and most distinctive of all human activities. ‘Reason is the true self of every man, since it is the supreme and better part. Reason is, in the highest sense, a mans self.’ Humans therefore fulfil their ultimate purpose of eudaimonia by following reason excellently.

Aquinas developed Aristotle’s ideas of the human purpose into his own; he was a Christians so therefore believed that humans were created in the ‘image of God’ thus arguing that the ultimate human purpose was not eudaimonia but perfection. This is the full development of God’s image within us, resulting in union with God. However, we cannot reach this perfection on earth, perfection will be attained in the afterlife and so we must work towards this on earth.

Our rational nature sets us apart from everything else in the world and enables us to have a unique relationship with God. Aquinas believed that God gave us our power to reason so we could share in his nature. He stated that “Man should not seek to know what is above reason” his argument was that men need reason to understand all of gods truths, yet there are certain truths that are beyond reason which men cant understand, we can, nevertheless see a reflection of these in the world that god created if we use our reason correctly.

Primary precepts are what Aquinas believed everybody knows instinctively and rationally, they are ‘written on our hearts’. God gave us natural inclinations to draw us towards our ultimate purpose, if we reflect upon these and use our reason excellently it allows us to work out the main rules; primary precepts of natural law from our natural inclinations. Our most fundamental inclination, as believed by Aquinas, is to live our lives so we achieve what is good and avoid what is evil. The five precepts come from our other inclinations. Like all things that exist we seek survival so must preserve innocent human life and we must reproduce and educate children to ‘preserve the species’. We must order society and worship god in order to live according to reason. These are only general principles but they apply to everyone. The Stoics argued that human nature is fixed and unchanging, Aquinas argued that since all humans have a common human nature, the primary precepts are ‘altogether unalterable’ this is because he believed God determined how people should behave and he was influenced by the Stoics.

This is a preview of the whole essay

The primary precept ‘to preserve innocent human life’ leads to rules such as ‘do not abort’, ‘do not commit euthanasia’ etc. these are secondary precepts. Secondary precepts are derived from primary precepts; they are theoretically more open to interpretation than primary precepts. Aquinas accepted that the more detailed we make them e.g. to deal with a certain situation, the more exceptions there will be. Natural law also looks into the functions of individual body parts in relation to our overall purpose. Aquinas believed it was wrong to use things for something other than its function/purpose; the purpose of sex organs is reproduction so therefore, contraception is wrong. Secondary precepts don’t follow directly the primary precepts, they require good judgement and wisdom to make and follow. Aquinas allowed secondary precepts to be altered ‘on particular and rare occasions’, when required by reason, he justified killing in war as the ‘lesser of two evils’. However they were normally treated as absolutes. So, even though natural law has the potential for flexibility it is often interpreted rigidly.

Natural moral law is concerned with both exterior and interior acts, also known as action and intention. Simply doing the right thing is not enough; to be truly moral ones intention must be right as well. For example, helping an old lady across the road (good exterior act) to impress someone (bad interior act) is wrong. However, good intentions don’t always lead to good actions.

Aquinas believed that if we work out natural law correctly we will automatically do what is right because he thought that reason would prevent anyone deliberately choosing to do wrong. Following reason excellently requires us to align our actions and intentions with the purpose for which god created us. As humans never intentionally choose evil (as this goes against our rational nature), Aquinas argued that sin was an error of reason. If someone focuses on ‘lesser goods’ like wealth or power they lose sight of the ‘highest good’ (God). In this way reason is enslaved by irrational desires, so we lose sight of our true purpose.

We must, therefore, use reason correctly. For this to happen we must set our hearts on God and seek his good will. We must check and supplement natural law with Gods divine law revealed in the bible. St Paul refers to the law that ‘God inscribed on the hearts of men’ obeying it is thus the equivalent to obeying God’s commands, Aquinas thought that this supports the concept of natural law.

Aquinas believed that Gods Eternal Law never changes, it determines the way things such as animals and planets behave and how humans should behave. All things participate in eternal law by the natural tendencies by which they are moved to their ends. Rational beings also participate in eternal law by their knowledge of positive and negative moral precepts, conformity to which leads us towards the end built into us by nature. These precepts constitute what is natural law.

Natural law adopts the principle of ‘double effect’ this is the use of evaluating the permissibility of acting when one's otherwise legitimate act (for example, relieving a terminally ill patient's pain) will also cause an effect one would normally be obliged to avoid (for example, the patient's death). An action having foreseen harmful effects practically inseparable from the good effect is justifiable if the good effect outweighs the bad effect. Natural law uses this principle to justify bad side effects so long as the act itself is not bad and the intention is good.

In general, Natural Law is important because it attempts to establish a law that we can all access and which applies to us all. This idea is important in human rights law. The Nuremberg Trials, where Nazi death camp officers were tried for their crimes, used the principles of natural law to try them, as the laws of their own country (Nazi Germany) at the time permitted them to do evil.

“Natural Law leads to unjust decisions.”

I agree with this statement, this is because natural law can be contradictory and is often applied inconsistently. How can we come to a just decision if there are certain exceptions to certain things, how do we know when this exception can be made?

Natural law lead to unjust decisions as it says that we must reproduce; sex should only be used for reproduction but can be abused, in cases like rape, if a natural law theorist says abortion is wrong, the cruel outcome is forcing a mother to have a child conceived in this way. It is absurd to follow a rule like this as it brings pain to everyone involved and helps no one. It is unjust as it treats the woman in the same way as a careless one who is to blame for her pregnancy.

Natural law requires the interior and exterior acts to be in harmony. Both the act and the intention must be good. This is unfair in certain circumstances but it does not take circumstances or situations into account. For example if a starving man steals from a rich greedy man in order to feed his family, this may not be seen as wrong as the intention was good and the circumstances enabled him to do so. Yet natural law theory states that the interior and exterior act must be in harmony, which means this man would be condemned. This is an unfair and unjust decision.

However, natural law can be fair, as in the situation above; there are not any exceptions, as stealing is always wrong, so no matter the situation, whoever had stole would be punished. It requires everybody to follow the same laws. It gives an objective basis that lets us universally condemn evil acts, by always forbidding these regardless of the consequences, it protects everyone from them. If it is universally wrong to murder people there are less chances of it happening because of the consequences whereas if it was fine to murder people might just go round killing people that have annoyed them somehow.

Yet, Aquinas allowed killing in war as the lesser of two evils, to preserve life. So why not allow killing a foetus to save the mother? And why must we never lie, even if it could save a life? It is unjust to never look into the consequences, what if murdering one person meant the safety of a whole community.

The ban on homosexual acts also reveals inconsistencies. If these are wrong because they prevent reproduction, Aquinas should not support the celibacy of priests. This ban can be seen as discriminatory and unjust, being based upon Aquinas’ preconceived ideas of sexuality. Also science undermines the belief in God creating us as we are, humans evolved by the blind process of natural selection. With no designer, we have no ultimate purpose that we must fulfil. Our natural inclinations are brute facts, not built in guidance as to how we should behave.

Although there are some ways in which natural law can lead to just decisions, overall it is unjust because we cannot judge something properly upon just someone actions and intentions as the consequences of these could be completely different to what was intended. The weaknesses in natural law outweigh the strengths because the basis of natural law is god, people no longer believe in God as strongly as they used to so multiple weaknesses have come from that.